US, Israel Launch Military Action
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel initiated military action against Iran. This marks a historic moment where the 47-year-long containment strategy against Iran, based on "deterrence and sanctions" since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, has shifted to a military solution, potentially fundamentally rewriting oil prices, the global economy, the alliance structure in the Middle East, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime itself.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel initiated military action against Iran.
- • Sho Sakanashi, Director of the Middle East Research Center at the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, explained future prospects on NHK.
- • Iran had been accelerating its nuclear development, and IAEA inspection restrictions had continued.
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
The U.S.-Israel attack on Iran is a structural consequence of the "spiral of conflict" exhausting diplomatic means and escalating to military action. Simultaneously, it carries the risks of U.S. "power overextension" (re-engagement in the Middle East amidst an Asia pivot) and a "chain of contagion" through regional spillover of the conflict.
── Probabilities and Responses ──────
🟡 Base 45% — Iran's initial retaliation remains limited to dozens of ballistic missiles, commercial navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is maintained, Hezbollah's attacks are confined to northern Israel, and China and Russia issue statements denying military intervention.
🟢 Optimistic 20% — Iran's initial retaliation is extremely limited (a few missiles to "save face"), large-scale anti-government demonstrations occur in Iran, Hezbollah refrains from military action with only a statement, and Saudi Arabia announces increased oil production.
🔴 Pessimistic 35% — Iran's retaliation reaches hundreds of missiles, mine-laying and anti-ship missile launches are confirmed in the Strait of Hormuz, Hezbollah initiates precision attacks deep into Israel, oil prices exceed $120, and American casualties occur from attacks on U.S. military bases.
📡 Signal — What Happened
Why it matters: On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel initiated military action against Iran. This marks a historic moment where the 47-year-long containment strategy against Iran, based on "deterrence and sanctions" since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, has shifted to a military solution, potentially fundamentally rewriting oil prices, the global economy, the alliance structure in the Middle East, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime itself.
- Military Action — On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel initiated military action against Iran.
- Expert Analysis — Sho Sakanashi, Director of the Middle East Research Center at the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, explained future prospects on NHK.
- Background — Iran had been accelerating its nuclear development, and IAEA inspection restrictions had continued.
- Alliance Structure — The U.S. and Israel coordinated military action in advance and executed it as a joint operation.
- Energy — Iran produces approximately 3 million barrels of crude oil per day, and the Strait of Hormuz accounts for about 20% of global oil transport.
- Diplomacy — President Trump is scheduled to visit China starting March 31, and the military action against Iran is noted for its strategic linkage with that diplomatic schedule.
- Markets — Due to escalating tensions in the Middle East, crude oil futures prices face upward pressure.
- Nuclear Issue — The JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) had effectively collapsed since the U.S. withdrawal in 2018, closing the path to a diplomatic solution.
- Regional Situation — Israel, after long-term military conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas in the Gaza and Lebanon fronts, proceeded with an attack on Iran itself.
- International Law — The legal basis for military action is invoked as the exercise of self-defense and the imminent threat posed by Iran's nuclear development.
- Impact on Japan — While Japan's direct crude oil imports from Iran have significantly decreased under sanctions, the risk of a Strait of Hormuz blockade impacts the overall supply of Middle Eastern crude oil.
- Russia-China — The reactions of Russia and China, Iran's main backers, hold the key to future conflict escalation.
The military action by the United States and Israel against Iran is not a sudden event. It is a structural consequence of a 47-year containment strategy against Iran finally converging on a military option.
This history dates back to the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution. The collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty and the establishment of theocratic rule by Ayatollah Khomeini fundamentally destroyed the U.S. security architecture in the Middle East. The Tehran U.S. Embassy hostage crisis (1979-81) severed U.S.-Iran relations, and subsequent relations between the two countries became defined by a chain of hostility and distrust.
In the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq to contain Iran. After the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, a "dual containment policy" was adopted, a strategy to suppress both Iran and Iraq. However, when Saddam's regime collapsed in the 2003 Iraq War, Iran's regional influence ironically expanded dramatically. An "Axis of Resistance," including Iraq's Shiite government, Syria's Assad regime, Lebanon's Hezbollah, and Yemen's Houthis, formed around Iran, encircling Israel.
The nuclear development issue became the international community's top priority from the early 2000s. The 2015 JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) was a historic agreement to lift sanctions in exchange for limiting Iran's nuclear activities. However, in 2018, President Trump (first term) unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and launched a "maximum pressure" campaign. This withdrawal gave Iran a pretext to accelerate its nuclear development, with enrichment levels reaching 60% (close to weapons-grade 90%).
During the Biden administration (2021-25), efforts were made to return to the nuclear deal, but diplomacy stalled due to the rise of conservative hardliners in Iran (political instability after President Raisi's accidental death in 2024) and the continued hardline stance of Israel's Netanyahu government. The Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the subsequent Gaza War re-visualized the threat posed by Iranian proxy forces, leading to increased public demand in Israel for direct attacks on Iran, seen as the "root cause."
President Trump's re-inauguration in 2025 (second term) marked the final turning point in Iran policy. His close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the resumption of "maximum pressure," and intelligence assessments that Iran's nuclear development had crossed a "red line" converged, paving the way for military action. It is highly probable that the IAEA's report in late 2025 on discrepancies in Iran's nuclear material served as the final trigger.
Experts like Sho Sakanashi, Director of the Middle East Research Center at the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, characterize this development as a "failure of deterrence." The chain of nuclear deal collapse → limits of sanctions → intensification of proxy wars → direct military action is the result of the containment strategy self-destructing due to internal contradictions. In particular, although "sanctions were designed as leverage for diplomatic negotiations," after 2018, when the negotiation table itself disappeared, sanctions became purposeless penalties, instead driving Iran to accelerate its nuclear development.
Furthermore, a crucial structural problem is that this military action contradicts the U.S. strategy of "pivot from the Middle East." Since the Obama administration, the U.S. has been rebalancing towards the Asia-Pacific. Amidst competition with China being the top priority, large-scale military intervention in the Middle East signifies a dispersion of strategic resources. President Trump's scheduled visit to China on March 31 suggests an intention to conclude the Iran attack "short-term and surgically." However, history teaches that "surgical" military actions in the Middle East rarely end as planned.
The delta: The conflict between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, previously managed by "deterrence and sanctions," has transitioned to an irreversible stage of military action. Eight years after the collapse of the JCPOA, with no room left for diplomatic solutions, the approach of a "point of no return" in nuclear development triggered military intervention. This change fundamentally re-evaluates not only the Middle East's security architecture but also global energy markets, the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and the Middle East's position in U.S. global strategy.
🔍 Between the Lines — What the Reports Aren't Saying
Officially, the purpose of the military action is stated as "eliminating the nuclear threat," but there are three true dynamics that reports are not mentioning. First, the timing of this attack perfectly aligns with a political schedule to "clear up the Middle East issue" before Trump's visit to China at the end of March, making it highly probable that the political calendar, not just nuclear urgency, determined the timing of the attack. Second, for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, there are purely domestic political motives: a decline in domestic political support after the Gaza war and a diversion of attention from his corruption trials. Third, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE are officially "calling for restraint," Iran's weakening is a strategic benefit for Sunni regional hegemony, and it is possible they gave implicit prior consent to this attack. In essence, while this military action appears to be a security decision on the surface, it is in reality a product born at the intersection of a triple calculation of interests: U.S. domestic politics, Israeli political dynamics, and Gulf geopolitics.
NOW PATTERN
Spiral of Conflict × Power Overextension × Chain of Contagion
The U.S.-Israel attack on Iran is a structural consequence of the "spiral of conflict" exhausting diplomatic means and escalating to military action. Simultaneously, it carries the risks of U.S. "power overextension" (re-engagement in the Middle East amidst an Asia pivot) and a "chain of contagion" through regional spillover of the conflict.
Intersection of Dynamics
These three dynamics—the spiral of conflict, power overextension, and the chain of contagion—form a dangerous triple structure that mutually amplifies each other.
The moment the spiral of conflict made military action "inevitable," the risk of power overextension automatically activated. The U.S. being forced to re-engage in the Middle East inevitably sets back its Indo-Pacific strategy against China. And the instant military action begins, the chain of contagion starts to expand in a chain reaction. Energy market turmoil, proxy retaliation, cyberattacks—these further accelerate the spiral of conflict, binding U.S. commitment more deeply and for a longer duration.
The most dangerous aspect of this triple structure is the lack of an exit strategy. The spiral of conflict does not allow for a simple conclusion of "destroying nuclear facilities will end it." Iran's nuclear knowledge will not disappear with the bombs, and over 3,000 ballistic missiles cannot be eliminated by attacking nuclear facilities. Power overextension makes "early withdrawal" difficult. Once an attack is launched, it becomes necessary to continuously deter Iranian retaliation, which demands a sustained military presence. The chain of contagion renders the very concept of "limited war" meaningless. If Hezbollah enters the fray, a Lebanese front opens, and if the Houthis attack the Red Sea, international shipping will be cut off.
History teaches that in situations where these three dynamics operate simultaneously, the initial "planned outcome" is always betrayed. Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Vietnam—in all these cases, the scenario envisioned at the start of military action was completely different from the reality several years later. Whether this attack ends "surgically" or marks the beginning of a new long-term conflict depends on the speed at which these three dynamics mutually amplify each other.
📚 Pattern History
2003: U.S. Invasion of Iraq (Iraq War)
A preemptive strike, ostensibly aimed at "eliminating the threat of weapons of mass destruction," led to 20 years of occupation and regional destabilization.
Structural similarities with the current situation: The promise of a "surgical strike" was not realized, and the power vacuum after regime change gave rise to new threats like ISIS. The cost of military action consistently far exceeds initial predictions.
1981: Israel's Bombing of the Osirak Reactor (Iraq)
A preemptive strike on a nuclear facility delayed nuclear development but did not eradicate it.
Structural similarities with the current situation: The attack on Osirak delayed Iraq's nuclear development by 5-10 years, but Saddam Hussein secretly continued development. Military attacks cannot destroy nuclear "knowledge," and development will resume as long as the political will remains.
2007: Israel's Bombing of Syrian Nuclear Facility (Operation Orchard)
Considered a successful example of a secret preemptive strike preventing nuclear proliferation, but Syria's regime change occurred due to other factors.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Small-scale, secret attacks can suppress international escalation, but Iran's scale and capabilities are incomparable to Syria's, making the application of the same pattern difficult.
2020: U.S. Assassination of General Soleimani
The elimination of Iran's top military leader led to a return to "managed conflict" after temporary escalation.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Iran retaliated (missile attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq) but avoided all-out war. However, this time it is an attack on nuclear facilities, representing a qualitatively different escalation from the Soleimani incident.
1956: Suez Crisis (Second Arab-Israeli War)
The Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt was forced to withdraw due to intervention by the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Military actions in the Middle East show unexpected developments in conjunction with geopolitical interests among major powers. This time, the reactions of Russia and China will be similar structural variables.
Patterns Shown by History
Historical patterns consistently show that military actions aimed at "eliminating nuclear threats" in the Middle East, while potentially achieving short-term goals, trigger unpredictable chain reactions in the long term. The 1981 Osirak bombing delayed Iraq's nuclear development but did not eradicate it, and the 2003 Iraq War ended in a 20-year quagmire. The 2007 Syrian attack is an exceptional "success," but Syria's military capabilities were orders of magnitude smaller than Iran's.
Most indicative is the pattern after the Soleimani assassination in 2020. Iran retaliated but avoided all-out war, and both countries returned to "managed conflict." However, this time it is an attack on nuclear facilities, which is highly likely to be perceived by Iran as an existential threat to the regime's survival. Against an existential threat, there is a risk that "full-scale counterattack" rather than limited retaliation will be chosen.
Another lesson from history is that those who plan military actions always operate on the assumption of a best-case scenario, lacking preparedness for the worst case. The Iraq War, which was supposed to "end in three weeks," and Vietnam, which was supposed to be a "limited punishment"—both met fundamentally different outcomes from the planners' assumptions. This time, too, it is likely assumed that a "precision strike will destroy only nuclear facilities, and Iran's retaliation will remain limited" as a best-case scenario, but history has repeatedly warned against such optimism.
🔮 Next Scenarios
The U.S. and Israeli attacks focus on Iran's main nuclear facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan, etc.) and succeed in delaying the nuclear development program by 5-10 years. Iran retaliates by attacking Israeli territory with ballistic missiles, and Hezbollah also launches rocket attacks from Lebanon, but damage on both sides remains within a "manageable range."
The Strait of Hormuz experiences temporary tension but does not lead to a full blockade. Iran recognizes that a strait blockade would also cut off its own oil exports and limits its actions to symbolic demonstrations (threats of mine-laying, small-scale vessel inspections). Crude oil prices temporarily exceed $100/barrel but stabilize in the $80-90 range within 1-2 months.
The international community, led by Russia and China, strongly condemns the action but does not proceed with concrete military intervention. The UN Security Council is effectively paralyzed by the U.S. veto. After several weeks of tension, some form of ceasefire or cooling-off period begins, and medium-to-long-term diplomatic processes are explored. President Trump's visit to China on March 31 proceeds as scheduled, but the Iran issue is added to the agenda.
In this scenario, the conflict follows a pattern of "limited escalation → managed de-escalation." However, Iran's nuclear development is "delayed" but not "eliminated," leaving a structural risk of the same problem resurfacing in a few years.
Implications for Investment/Action: Iran's initial retaliation remains limited to dozens of ballistic missiles, commercial navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is maintained, Hezbollah's attacks are confined to northern Israel, and China and Russia issue statements denying military intervention.
The attack inflicts devastating damage on Iran's nuclear facilities and military command structure, leading the Iranian leadership to decide to avoid all-out war. Political chaos erupts within Iran after the attack, and conflicts between the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and the regular army surface. Anti-government sentiment among citizens reignites, potentially leading to large-scale demonstrations reminiscent of the Mahsa Amini protests in 2022.
In this scenario, the attack exposes the vulnerabilities of the Iranian regime, accelerating movements towards medium-to-long-term regime change. Hezbollah limits itself to symbolic retaliation (limited rocket attacks), and the Houthis also reduce their activities in the Red Sea. The entire proxy network loses its cohesion due to the weakening of the "main target."
The energy market stabilizes relatively quickly after the initial shock, with crude oil prices settling in the $90 range. The U.S. requests increased production from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, combining it with releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to curb supply concerns. The geopolitical power balance in the Middle East shifts in favor of Israel and Sunni Arab states, making the expansion of the Abraham Accords (with Saudi Arabia's participation) a realistic prospect.
However, the probability of this scenario materializing is low. Iran's military capabilities are qualitatively different from those of Iraq or Syria, and its retaliatory capacity remains substantial. Furthermore, nationalist sentiment within Iran tends to rally support for the regime in response to foreign attacks.
Implications for Investment/Action: Iran's initial retaliation is extremely limited (a few missiles to "save face"), large-scale anti-government demonstrations occur in Iran, Hezbollah refrains from military action with only a statement, and Saudi Arabia announces increased oil production.
Iran launches a full-scale retaliation, and the entire Middle East develops into a multi-front conflict. Specifically, the following chain of events occurs simultaneously: (1) Iran attacks major Israeli cities and military bases with hundreds of ballistic missiles, (2) the Strait of Hormuz is effectively blockaded with mines and anti-ship missiles, (3) Hezbollah launches a saturation attack on northern Israel with an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, (4) Iraqi Shiite militias attack U.S. military bases in Iraq, (5) the Houthis attack commercial vessels in the Red Sea and Saudi oil facilities, and (6) Iran's national cyber forces conduct large-scale cyberattacks on critical U.S. and Israeli infrastructure.
In this scenario, crude oil prices exceed $150/barrel, and the global economy enters stagflation. Asian countries, including Japan, face an energy supply crisis due to the Strait of Hormuz blockade, forcing emergency alternative procurement and releases from strategic reserves. Financial markets experience a global risk-off, with stock markets falling by 20-30% and a flight to safe-haven assets (U.S. Treasuries, gold, some cryptocurrencies).
President Trump's visit to China on March 31 is postponed or canceled, and U.S.-China relations also deteriorate (as China shows signs of indirectly supporting Iran). The conflict prolongs for several months, forcing the U.S. into full-scale military intervention in the Middle East. This is the moment when "power overextension" materializes, and China maximizes this opportunity to expand its influence in the Indo-Pacific.
In the worst case, a cornered Iranian leadership might even attempt "dirty bomb"-like retaliation using remaining nuclear material, or accelerate nuclear weapons development.
Implications for Investment/Action: Iran's retaliation reaches hundreds of missiles, mine-laying and anti-ship missile launches are confirmed in the Strait of Hormuz, Hezbollah initiates precision attacks deep into Israel, oil prices exceed $120, and American casualties occur from attacks on U.S. military bases.
Key Triggers to Watch
- Confirmation of the scale and targets of Iran's retaliatory attacks — The number of ballistic missile launches and targets (military objectives only or including civilian infrastructure) will determine the future scale of the conflict: March 1 – March 7, 2026 (72 hours to 1 week after the attack)
- Navigation status of the Strait of Hormuz — Whether Iran proceeds with mine-laying or naval interference with passage will determine the impact on energy markets: March 1 – March 14, 2026 (within 2 weeks after the attack)
- UN Security Council emergency meeting — The U.S. exercise of its veto against Russia-China resolution proposals (demanding a ceasefire) and the intensity of international condemnation: March 1 – March 5, 2026 (within a few days after the attack)
- Feasibility of President Trump's visit to China on March 31 — Postponement or cancellation of the visit signals prolonged conflict, while proceeding as scheduled signals a successful "short-term decisive battle": March 15 – March 31, 2026
- Hezbollah's military response — If large-scale rocket attacks from Lebanon commence, Israel will open a northern front, qualitatively escalating the conflict: March 1 – March 14, 2026
🔄 Tracking Loop
Next Trigger: Scale and targets of Iran's retaliatory attacks March 1 – 7, 2026 — Iran's response in the first 72 hours to 1 week will determine whether this conflict remains a "limited engagement" or escalates into a "Middle East-wide war." The number of ballistic missile launches and the presence or absence of military action in the Strait of Hormuz are the most crucial indicators.
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking Theme: Outcome of the U.S.-Israel vs. Iran Military Conflict — The next milestones are the completion of Iran's retaliatory attacks and the start of international ceasefire negotiations (targeting mid-March 2026), and the feasibility of President Trump's visit to China on March 31.
🎯 Oracle Declaration
Prediction Question: Will Iran effectively blockade the Strait of Hormuz for more than 48 hours (stopping commercial tanker traffic) by June 30, 2026?
Judgment Deadline: 2026-06-30 | Judgment Criteria: YES if data from major shipping tracking services (MarineTraffic, Lloyd's List, etc.) confirms that commercial tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has been continuously interrupted for more than 48 hours. Temporary reductions in traffic volume or surges in insurance premiums alone will be judged NO.
How do you read this? Participate in Prediction →
